Skip to main content

About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
, that office dealt more with the united nations than with africa, even though the united nations was dealing with the issue. at the time, it was a working level staff position. her first in government. ambassador rice could make announcements, but wouldn't be involved in making such an important decision about getting involved militarily in rwanda and president clinton said he made the decision. it was the greatest mistake of his presidency. and susan rice traveled to rwanda shortly after the genocide and said seeing the horrors of rwanda, the ground littered with hundreds of thousands of bodies is what actually made her passionate about the issue of preventing genocide in the future. she realized this was a wrong decision of the administration. she returned when she became u.n. ambassador, spoke about that experience and there's also a quote from her in the book reference by rabbi shmuley in which she swore that if she ever faced a crisis like that again, she would argue for dramatic action and then in her words, go down in flames. >> so, why religious leaders, especially these two, speakin
to the united nations, susan rice comes under fire again. this time, it's over rwanda. let's go "outfront. >>> good evening, welcome, everyone. "outfront" tonight breaking news, president obama puts the syrian president on notice. the president is reacting to new evidence that assad's regime has started mixing chemicals to make deadly sarin gas, adding to its massive stockpile of chemical weapons. >> and today i want to make it absolutely clear to assad and those under his command, the world is watching. the use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable. >> assad is on the edge of president obama's so-called red line against syria. the president said this summer that syria's use or movement of chemical weapons could mean u.s. intervention. so outfront tonight, barbara star. how exactly -- how clear is the evidence that they are moving in a new step with chemical weapons. >> it was just over the weekend in the last few days the intelligence began coming in.
at the time of the again side, the rwanda again side. that office dealt more with the united nations than with africa, even though the united nations was dealing with the issue. at the time it was a working level staff position. her first in government, ambassador rice could make announcements at that level, but wouldn't be involved making an important decision getting involved militarily in rwanda. president clinton said he made the decision, it was the greatest mistake of his presidency, and ambassador rice travelled to rwanda after the again side. she said seeing the ground littered with hundreds of thousands of bodies is what made her passionate about the issue of preventing again side in the future. she realized this was a wrong decision of the administration. she spoke about that experience. and there's also a quote from her in this book reference, in which she swore if she ever faced a crisis for that again, she would argue for dramatic action and go down in flames. >> so then why -- why religious leaders, especially these two speaking out against her, drug and alcohol abuse is up.
-month period bradley manning was abused. the united nations has admitted this, a speciwhy was he treated way? h several were ordered to abuse him to get a confession. there's been no confession and that's the case that's going on now. and that case is a reflection in the decay of the rule of law. hillary clinton's spokesperson resigned over the issue. the entire quantico prisoner base was affected. it reflects serious problems within the military system. it has a feeling about accountability and unaccountability is flowing into other parts of our life. >> now i don't want to get into detail, i know you have a strong point of view, obviously on how bradley manning has been treated. but i didn't want to go down that path. i wanted to ask a question about something else you thought about him. you said what they were dog is perhaps to coerce him to get you involved in all of this. he could make a deal to serve limited time. and to make that deal, you could be the guy who loses out. are you worried that that could be the deal, he says this is what julian assange did to get the information so you cou
're an ambassador to the united nations -- i want to get your thoughts on this. she said, look, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation responsibilities. i guess the implication being that she would have been aware of other things that were different or contradicted directly to what she went and said on television. does this cast any doubt on her story? general clark has made what i've heard from everybody who knows her that she is an incredibly honest and forthright person. >> well, i think there's a bigger question here, erin, and that's the credibility of the administration on these national security issues and whether they politicized a national security issue that led to the death of four americans. i mean, i do -- i don't agree that the american people were not misled on this. i don't know how five days afterwards, a senior official -- first of all, i don't understand why susan rice was in that chair as opposed to hillary clinton as u.n. ambassador, she had nothing to do with what happened in benghazi. but besides that, you know, the issue here is why did the
passed against the will of the united states, israel, canada and six other nations. here's u.n. ambassador susan rice after the vote. >> today's unfortunate and counterproductive resolution places further obstacles in the path to peace. that is why the united states voted against it. >> now, the vote gives the palestinians a higher profile at the u.n. and more important, it also means they can join organizations like the international criminal court. that is important because it could allow the palestinians to pursue war crime charges against israel. "outfront" tonight, the prime min sfer. good to see you. so, what does this vote mean for israel? >> it doesn't mean anything. i think it means resolution because if you'd like to get the sate, it should be on negotiations. they've got a good support of one country, israel. and they would get it only if the will is negotiations. what's happened today is that the community gave them a mandate -- between the palestinians because according to the conference, it says they're very clear that no one can take a unilateral move and they
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)